-15-
Petitioners assert that Cox violated IRM section 4565.21(1) when
he continued a civil examination after finding a firm indication
of fraud. Petitioners assert that Cox violated IRM section
4565.21(1) when he spoke to Voorhees about the making of
petitioner’s criminal referral to CID. Petitioners assert that
Cox violated section 7605(b) by conducting a second examination
of petitioner’s books and records.
With the exception of petitioners’ assertion concerning
section 7605(b), petitioners’ two assertions are the same
assertions that petitioner made in the criminal case and that
were not accepted by either the District Court or the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See Hickey v. United States,
supra. Respondent notes that petitioners’ current assertions on
the applicability of IRM section 4565.21(1) are similar to the
assertions that petitioner made in the criminal case in his
motion to suppress and argues that the District Court’s
disposition of that motion may estop petitioners from making
those same assertions here. Respondent makes no mention of the
fact that petitioner also made the same assertions in connection
4(...continued)
(b) Restrictions on Examination of Taxpayer.--No
taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination
or investigations, and only one inspection of a
taxpayer’s books of account shall be made for each
taxable year unless the taxpayer requests otherwise or
unless the Secretary, after investigation, notifies the
taxpayer in writing that an additional inspection is
necessary.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011